The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: geckothegeek on July 31, 2015, 08:25:27 PM
-
I have come here because this website is managed better, works faster and I believe is the place to get flat earth answers.
It has been said that the sun is a spotlight. But there is another statement :
"It merely acts like a spotlight." An explanation would be appreciated. It seems there is some confusion. If the sun "merely acts like a spotlight" why is it not a spotlight ?
If it is not a spotlight - what is it ?
-
A spotlight shines light in one direction. The sun shines light in all directions, which is limited in its extent by the opacity of the atmosphere and certain limits to human perspective across a plane earth. Since the light does not propagate infinitely, due to the fact that the atmosphere is not perfectly transparent, its light is limited to a spot of light upon the plane earth. Hence, the sun is casting a spotlight without itself literally casting light in only one direction.
-
As usual flat earth trying to make sense of nonsense is nonsense.
The sun is definitely not a spotlight in any sense. I realize that this website is not a place for reality, so it is useless to post real facts for the benefit of flat earthers.
-
Does a candle illuminate the earth infinitely into the distance? Therefore it is casting a "spot of light" upon the earth.
-
No Tom, a candle illuminates an area, not a spot. Spots are small. The area illuminated by the sun is not small, especially when compared to the size of the FE sun.
-
A spotlight shines light in one direction. The sun shines light in all directions, which is limited in its extent by the opacity of the atmosphere and certain limits to human perspective across a plane earth. Since the light does not propagate infinitely, due to the fact that the atmosphere is not perfectly transparent, its light is limited to a spot of light upon the plane earth. Hence, the sun is casting a spotlight without itself literally casting light in only one direction.
How does the sun act on other planets and the moon ?
-
No Tom, a candle illuminates an area, not a spot. Spots are small. The area illuminated by the sun is not small, especially when compared to the size of the FE sun.
If a foreigner circled their finger at an area of a map and said that they live in that spot, that they may be pointing at an entire country is not an incorrect usage of the word spot.
A spotlight shines light in one direction. The sun shines light in all directions, which is limited in its extent by the opacity of the atmosphere and certain limits to human perspective across a plane earth. Since the light does not propagate infinitely, due to the fact that the atmosphere is not perfectly transparent, its light is limited to a spot of light upon the plane earth. Hence, the sun is casting a spotlight without itself literally casting light in only one direction.
How does the sun act on other planets and the moon ?
There is no atmosphere in space.
-
No Tom, a candle illuminates an area, not a spot. Spots are small. The area illuminated by the sun is not small, especially when compared to the size of the FE sun.
If a foreigner circled their finger at an area of a map and said that they live in that spot, that they may be pointing at an entire country is not an incorrect usage of the word spot.
Yes, it is an incorrect usage of the word spot. An area is not a spot. A spot is a specific location. An area is a general region. Do you honestly not understand the distinction or do you just want to play the semantics game again?
-
No Tom, a candle illuminates an area, not a spot. Spots are small. The area illuminated by the sun is not small, especially when compared to the size of the FE sun.
If a foreigner circled their finger at an area of a map and said that they live in that spot, that they may be pointing at an entire country is not an incorrect usage of the word spot.
Yes, it is an incorrect usage of the word spot. An area is not a spot. A spot is a specific location. An area is a general region. Do you honestly not understand the distinction or do you just want to play the semantics game again?
A spot is a small mark. It may be a map of the galaxy pointing out the earth, but a spot is a spot. It matters not if it's a spot on your face, or a spot on a map. A spot may be a dimensionless point, or a circular area. A spotlight does not radiate a dimensionless point, but a circular area, a relatively small spot of light on a vast scenery. A spot is a spot, is a spot.
-
A spotlight is a spotlight is a spotlight.
A spotlight shines in only one direction and its beam is in the form of a circle.
Answer to the question:
If the sun is a spotlight and shines down on the earth how is the moon illuminated ?
-
No Tom, a candle illuminates an area, not a spot. Spots are small. The area illuminated by the sun is not small, especially when compared to the size of the FE sun.
If a foreigner circled their finger at an area of a map and said that they live in that spot, that they may be pointing at an entire country is not an incorrect usage of the word spot.
Yes, it is an incorrect usage of the word spot. An area is not a spot. A spot is a specific location. An area is a general region. Do you honestly not understand the distinction or do you just want to play the semantics game again?
A spot is a small mark. It may be a map of the galaxy pointing out the earth, but a spot is a spot. It matters not if it's a spot on your face, or a spot on a map. A spot may be a dimensionless point, or a circular area. A spotlight does not radiate a dimensionless point, but a circular area, a relatively small spot of light on a vast scenery. A spot is a spot, is a spot.
Then you admit that a 32 mile diameter sun illuminating 1/2 of the known flat earth does not satisfy any reasonable definition of the word spot? Good. Glad to see that we're making progress.
-
This is really nitpicky. Tom described the nature of the sun. It doesn't matter whether that technically qualifies as a spotlight or not.
-
A spotlight is a spotlight is a spotlight.
A spotlight shines in only one direction and its beam is in the form of a circle.
Answer to the question:
If the sun is a spotlight and shines down on the earth how is the moon illuminated ?
Nobody said the sun is a spotlight. ::)
-
It doesn't matter whether that technically qualifies as a spotlight or not.
Then why does Tom so consistently argue that it does? Could it be that if the sun doesn't act as a spotlight, then that makes it that much harder to explain the FE day/night cycle if the sun is an omnidirectioal light source (which it obviously is)?
-
Actually, I did describe the sun as an omnidirectional light source:
A spotlight shines light in one direction. The sun shines light in all directions, which is limited in its extent by the opacity of the atmosphere and certain limits to human perspective across a plane earth. Since the light does not propagate infinitely, due to the fact that the atmosphere is not perfectly transparent, its light is limited to a spot of light upon the plane earth. Hence, the sun is casting a spotlight without itself literally casting light in only one direction.
-
A spotlight is a spotlight is a spotlight.
A spotlight shines in only one direction and its beam is in the form of a circle.
Answer to the question:
If the sun is a spotlight and shines down on the earth how is the moon illuminated ?
Nobody said the sun is a spotlight. ::)
It has been said "The sun acts like a spotlight." And therein lies the confusion from the flat earthers.
Of course the nature of the sun is well known in the real world. The sun is definitely neither a spotlight or even "acts like a spotlight." The sun shines in all directions.To the earth, to the moon, to the planets.
-
A spotlight is a spotlight is a spotlight.
A spotlight shines in only one direction and its beam is in the form of a circle.
Answer to the question:
If the sun is a spotlight and shines down on the earth how is the moon illuminated ?
Nobody said the sun is a spotlight. ::)
It has been said "The sun acts like a spotlight." And therein lies the confusion from the flat earthers.
Of course the nature of the sun is well known in the real world. The sun is definitely neither a spotlight or even "acts like a spotlight." The sun shines in all directions.To the earth, to the moon, to the planets.
Again, the sun does shine in all directions.
-
Actually, I did describe the sun as an omnidirectional light source:
Since the light does not propagate infinitely, due to the fact that the atmosphere is not perfectly transparent, its light is limited to a spot of light upon the plane earth. Hence, the sun is casting a spotlight without itself literally casting light in only one direction.
Omnidirectional light sources don't cast spotlights.
-
Actually, I did describe the sun as an omnidirectional light source:
Since the light does not propagate infinitely, due to the fact that the atmosphere is not perfectly transparent, its light is limited to a spot of light upon the plane earth. Hence, the sun is casting a spotlight without itself literally casting light in only one direction.
Omnidirectional light sources don't cast spotlights.
Sure they do. Even in RET omnidirectional light sources cast a spot of light upon the earth's surface. A candle does not illuminate the entirety of the earth
-
Actually, I did describe the sun as an omnidirectional light source:
Since the light does not propagate infinitely, due to the fact that the atmosphere is not perfectly transparent, its light is limited to a spot of light upon the plane earth. Hence, the sun is casting a spotlight without itself literally casting light in only one direction.
Omnidirectional light sources don't cast spotlights.
Sure they do. Even in RET omnidirectional light sources cast a spot of light upon the earth's surface. A candle does not illuminate the entirety of the earth
Tom Bishop just doesn't make sense. :o ??? Or maybe Tom Bishop can explain this. By the very definition ominidirectional is in all directions and a spotlight shines in only one direction or you could say it is unidirectional ? Still I have received no answer on how the moon is illuminated according to flat earth theory ?
-
Tom Bishop just doesn't make sense. :o ??? Or maybe Tom Bishop can explain this. By the very definition ominidirectional is in all directions and a spotlight shines in only one direction or you could say it is unidirectional ?
Actually, a spotlight can be the light fixture or the spot of light it creates. A sun which makes a spotlight does not imply unidirectional light.
Still I have received no answer on how the moon is illuminated according to flat earth theory ?
There is no atmosphere in space.
-
Tom Bishop just doesn't make sense. :o ??? Or maybe Tom Bishop can explain this. By the very definition ominidirectional is in all directions and a spotlight shines in only one direction or you could say it is unidirectional ?
Actually, a spotlight can be the light fixture or the spot of light it creates. A sun which makes a spotlight does not imply unidirectional light.
Still I have received no answer on how the moon is illuminated according to flat earth theory ?
There is no atmosphere in space.
Tom, geckothegeek asked the question, how does the moon illuminated according to flat earth theory? I too would like to know how the sun can illuminate the moon when the sun is so much further in space then the moon.
-
Tom, geckothegeek asked the question, how does the moon illuminated according to flat earth theory? I too would like to know how the sun can illuminate the moon when the sun is so much further in space then the moon.
There is no atmosphere in space.
-
Tom Bishop just doesn't make sense. :o ??? Or maybe Tom Bishop can explain this. By the very definition ominidirectional is in all directions and a spotlight shines in only one direction or you could say it is unidirectional ?
Actually, a spotlight can be the light fixture or the spot of light it creates. A sun which makes a spotlight does not imply unidirectional light.
Actually, it does. That's what spotlights do. They provide narrow, unidirectional beams of light that illuminate relatively small, specific locations.
-
Tom Bishop just doesn't make sense. :o ??? Or maybe Tom Bishop can explain this. By the very definition ominidirectional is in all directions and a spotlight shines in only one direction or you could say it is unidirectional ?
Actually, a spotlight can be the light fixture or the spot of light it creates. A sun which makes a spotlight does not imply unidirectional light.
Actually, it does. That's what spotlights do. They provide narrow, unidirectional beams of light that illuminate relatively small, specific locations.
It's a good thing we went out of our way to describe how a sun can cast a spotlight without being a spotlight, isn't it?
-
Tom Bishop just doesn't make sense. :o ??? Or maybe Tom Bishop can explain this. By the very definition ominidirectional is in all directions and a spotlight shines in only one direction or you could say it is unidirectional ?
Actually, a spotlight can be the light fixture or the spot of light it creates. A sun which makes a spotlight does not imply unidirectional light.
Actually, it does. That's what spotlights do. They provide narrow, unidirectional beams of light that illuminate relatively small, specific locations.
It's a good thing we went out of our way to describe how a sun can cast a spotlight without being a spotlight, isn't it?
Not really, because it's wrong. A theater lighting tech uses a spotlight to illuminate a specific location on the stage, not 1/2 the stage. If you have any doubts, remember that the clue is in the name.
-
Tom, geckothegeek asked the question, how does the moon illuminated according to flat earth theory? I too would like to know how the sun can illuminate the moon when the sun is so much further in space then the moon.
There is no atmosphere in space.
Good answer. So, do you believe the moon is self illuminating?
-
Tom Bishop just doesn't make sense. :o ??? Or maybe Tom Bishop can explain this. By the very definition ominidirectional is in all directions and a spotlight shines in only one direction or you could say it is unidirectional ?
Actually, a spotlight can be the light fixture or the spot of light it creates. A sun which makes a spotlight does not imply unidirectional light.
Actually, it does. That's what spotlights do. They provide narrow, unidirectional beams of light that illuminate relatively small, specific locations.
It's a good thing we went out of our way to describe how a sun can cast a spotlight without being a spotlight, isn't it?
Not really, because it's wrong. A theater lighting tech uses a spotlight to illuminate a specific location on the stage, not 1/2 the stage. If you have any doubts, remember that the clue is in the name.
This from the flat earth wiki.:
"The sun acts like a spotlight and shines downward as it moves." ?
Along with the animated diagram the sun is shown rotating above the flat earth with a definite round circle that a spotlight would show. ?
Moon and sun are both shown in the same orbit. ?
Moon and sun are both shown in motion. ?
Moon and sun are shown as always being 180 degrees apart. ?
Moon and sun are shown as traveling at exactly the same speed. ?
Moon and sun are shown as being the same size. ?
Moon and sun have been shown as being the same distance from the earth. ?
No indication is shown how the moon shines on the earth. ?
The earth is shown as the commonly known Azimuthal Equidistant Projection of the globe. ?
No accurate map, or even one map, has ever been produced showing the entire earth as a flat disc. ?
The earth is not a flat disc. The earth is a round globe.
The whole idea of "The sun is a spotlight" is wrong for all these reasons. Guilty on all counts.
Also:
If the sun is a spotlight and shines only downward on the earth, in addition to the moon how are the other planets such as Mars and Venus illuminated ?
A spotlight has to have some kind of reflector behind the lamp or light bulb to direct the light in one direction and some means to focus the beam in a circular pattern. If the sun is a spotlight, or acts like a spotlight, what kind of reflector and focusing device would the sun have to have to be a spotlight or act like a spotlight ?
A more accurate statement would be.:
"The sun acts like a light bulb and shines in all directions."
-
I am reasonably certain that most visitors to this website (except maybe a few so-called flat earthers) really know how the sun and the earth act and interact .
I was just interested in seeing how the flat-earthers were going to try to get out of this and explain creditably about this "spotlight". "To dream the impossible dream !" ???
;D
-
Hello ? Where did everybody go ? Tom Bishop ?
-
Hello ? Where did everybody go ? Tom Bishop ?
Tom is probably talking with the people at Merriam-Webster about redefining the word "spot".
-
Hello ? Where did everybody go ? Tom Bishop ?
Tom is probably talking with the people at Merriam-Webster about redefining the word "spot".
Maybe there is something in some of Rowbotham's noted scholastic works ?
-
Tom, geckothegeek asked the question, how does the moon illuminated according to flat earth theory? I too would like to know how the sun can illuminate the moon when the sun is so much further in space then the moon.
There is no atmosphere in space.
Good answer. So, do you believe the moon is self illuminating?
The only flat earth answer I have seen is the moon shrimp ? Hopefully, maybe Tom Bishop can clear up this question ? But we are getting off topic. The question was about the sun, not the moon ?
-
Hello ? Where did everybody go ? Tom Bishop ?
I don't understand what makes you think that people will respond to you after you were an absolute cunt to them. For all the expertise you claim to have on how the Sun and the Earth interact, you could clearly improve your understanding of how humans interact with one another.
-
Hello ? Where did everybody go ? Tom Bishop ?
I don't understand what makes you think that people will respond to you after you were an absolute cunt to them. For all the expertise you claim to have on how the Sun and the Earth interact, you could clearly improve your understanding of how humans interact with one another.
Re:"The Sun Is A Spotlight":
We're just trying to get a few answers to clear up a few points, but don't seem to be getting anywhere. We're just interested in hearing the FE side of the questions and their basis for evidence. Some questions have been asked but so far no answers.
I don't claim to have any expertise or be an expert on the subject but I do know of many sources for information from the RE side. It is just getting information from the FE side that is the problem. There has been a lack of response to some of our questions. That's all,
-
Let's just go back to square one and ask one question at a time. Fair enough ?
# 1. If the sun acts like a spotlight and shines downward, how is the moon illuminated ?
-
I told you how the sun works on post two. I will not explain it to you again.
"acts like" != "is"
-
I told you how the sun works on post two. I will not explain it to you again.
"acts like" != "is"
Which is correct ? Yours or the wiki ? You say the sun shines in all directions. The flat earth wiki says it shines downward.
Something that shines in one direction is unidirectional and "acts like a spotlight."
Something that shines in all directions is omnidirectional and "acts like a floodlight."
It cannot be both at the same time. It must be either one or the other.
-
The sun shines downwards on the earth. It certainly does not shine upwards on the earth. What's wrong with that statement?
-
The sun shines downwards on the earth. It certainly does not shine upwards on the earth. What's wrong with that statement?
By definition a spotlight shines in only one direction. The wiki says downward. It doesn't shine upwards or sidewards.
If it only shines downward on the earth how are the moon, the planets and their moons illuminated ?
-
The sun shines downwards on the earth. It certainly does not shine upwards on the earth. What's wrong with that statement?
By definition a spotlight shines in only one direction. The wiki says downward. It doesn't shine upwards or sidewards.
If it only shines downward on the earth how are the moon, the planets and their moons illuminated ?
You seem to be having some difficulty here. The sun shines downwards on the earth and sideways or upways on the celestial bodies.
-
The sun shines downwards on the earth. It certainly does not shine upwards on the earth. What's wrong with that statement?
By definition a spotlight shines in only one direction. The wiki says downward. It doesn't shine upwards or sidewards.
If it only shines downward on the earth how are the moon, the planets and their moons illuminated ?
You seem to be having some difficulty here. The sun shines downwards on the earth and sideways or upways on the celestial bodies.
I leave you with this .:
You are the one having the difficulty. Is the sun is a spotlight or if it acts like a spotlight, is it a spotlight or is it not a spotlight ? The definition of a spotlight is that it can shine in only one direction. A spotlight can not shine sideways or upwards.
Or are we just engaging in the old flat earth game of semantics ?
This topic has turned in to the results I had on my first topic of how the distance of the earth to the moon was determined by the Amateur Radio "Moon Bounce."
It eventually got locked by the administrator. Might as well do the same for this.
If anyone else wants to continue this discussion...If anyone else wants to play games with Tom Bishop, they are welcome to it. I'm outta here. I've wasted too much time already and have better things to do. Good Luck to you ! LOL
-
The sun shines downwards on the earth. It certainly does not shine upwards on the earth. What's wrong with that statement?
By definition a spotlight shines in only one direction. The wiki says downward. It doesn't shine upwards or sidewards.
If it only shines downward on the earth how are the moon, the planets and their moons illuminated ?
You seem to be having some difficulty here. The sun shines downwards on the earth and sideways or upways on the celestial bodies.
In other words, the sun shines in all directions which is not at all like a spotlight.
-
The sun shines downwards on the earth. It certainly does not shine upwards on the earth. What's wrong with that statement?
By definition a spotlight shines in only one direction. The wiki says downward. It doesn't shine upwards or sidewards.
If it only shines downward on the earth how are the moon, the planets and their moons illuminated ?
You seem to be having some difficulty here. The sun shines downwards on the earth and sideways or upways on the celestial bodies.
In other words, the sun shines in all directions which is not at all like a spotlight.
"The sun acts like a spotlight and shines downward as it moves."
Looks like the wiki needs correcting.
-
"The sun acts like a spotlight and shines downward as it moves."
Looks like the wiki needs correcting.
Yeah, that wouldn't be the first time. Luckily, we also have the forum, where people can clarify small miswordings to nitpicking pedants.
What, did you think the Wiki is some kind of Gospel and you can "gotcha!" us by pointing out an ambiguous phrasing?
-
Googleotomy, if you have a small DC incandecent lamp, it is shining in pretty much all dirctions, right? If you put the bulb into a tube, like a toilet paper tube, then the light coming out the other end will be a spot, correct? The tube is causing the bulb to act like a spolight, even though i is not a spotlight.
Are you really this dumb, or are you just acting dumb?
-
Googleotomy, if you have a small DC incandecent lamp, it is shining in pretty much all dirctions, right? If you put the bulb into a tube, like a toilet paper tube, then the light coming out the other end will be a spot, correct? The tube is causing the bulb to act like a spolight, even though i is not a spotlight.
Are you suggesting that there is a giant tube surrounding the sun? ???
Are you really this dumb, or are you just acting dumb?
Given your toilet paper tube comment, I'd have to ask you the same question.
-
"The sun acts like a spotlight and shines downward as it moves."
Looks like the wiki needs correcting.
Yeah, that wouldn't be the first time. Luckily, we also have the forum, where people can clarify small miswordings to nitpicking pedants.
It's also lucky that we have editors that can fix and/or clarify such "small miswordings" so that "nitpicking pedants" won't keep bringing it all the time. We do still have editors for the wiki, don't we?
-
Googleotomy, if you have a small DC incandecent lamp, it is shining in pretty much all dirctions, right? If you put the bulb into a tube, like a toilet paper tube, then the light coming out the other end will be a spot, correct? The tube is causing the bulb to act like a spolight, even though i is not a spotlight.
Are you suggesting that there is a giant tube surrounding the sun? ???
Are you really this dumb, or are you just acting dumb?
Given your toilet paper tube comment, I'd have to ask you the same question.
I am sorry that I had to dumb it down for my friend Googleotomy, but we might have had 3 more pages of him ranting about how something can not both act like a spotlight and not be a spotlight. Were you enjoying his rants, markjo? You guys can PM each other.
-
Googleotomy, if you have a small DC incandecent lamp, it is shining in pretty much all dirctions, right? If you put the bulb into a tube, like a toilet paper tube, then the light coming out the other end will be a spot, correct? The tube is causing the bulb to act like a spolight, even though i is not a spotlight.
Are you suggesting that there is a giant tube surrounding the sun? ???
Are you really this dumb, or are you just acting dumb?
Given your toilet paper tube comment, I'd have to ask you the same question.
I am sorry that I had to dumb it down for my friend Googleotomy, but we might have had 3 more pages of him ranting about how something can not both act like a spotlight and not be a spotlight. Were you enjoying his rants, markjo? You guys can PM each other.
Googleotomy was not posting in this thread. Perhaps you're referring to geckothegeek. Even so, why would I want to PM him?
BTW, I agree that if you put a tube around a light bulb, then you're pretty much making a spotlight. My question to you is if you think that there is some sort of tube around the sun turning it into a spotlight? If so, what evidence do you have to support that belief?
-
There is no tube, markjo, but in case you have not noticed, we have an atmoplane and light can not travel infinitely through air. I thought Googleotomy, I mean geckothegeek, was the only one that needed simple explanations broken down into childish terms. :-\
-
There is no tube, markjo, but in case you have not noticed, we have an atmoplane and light can not travel infinitely through air.
How is that anything like putting a light bulb in a tube?
In case you haven't been keeping up, a spotlight is a narrow beam of light that illuminates a small, specific location. How does a 32 mile diameter sun illuminating an area thousands of miles in diameter fit any reasonable definition of a spotlight?
-
There is no tube, markjo, but in case you have not noticed, we have an atmoplane and light can not travel infinitely through air.
How is that anything like putting a light bulb in a tube?
In case you haven't been keeping up, a spotlight is a narrow beam of light that illuminates a small, specific location. How does a 32 mile diameter sun illuminating an area thousands of miles in diameter fit any reasonable definition of a spotlight?
It's Flat Earth Magic ???
Sorry ! I was going to stay out of this, but I just couldn't resist. LOL
Are you saying that the "atmoplane" is so thick that it acts like the tube in your illustration of the flashlight bulb and focuses the sun into the circular beam of the "spotlight" on the diagram of the animation of the way the sun orbits over the flat earth ?
-
The sun shines downwards on the earth. It certainly does not shine upwards on the earth. What's wrong with that statement?
By definition a spotlight shines in only one direction. The wiki says downward. It doesn't shine upwards or sidewards.
If it only shines downward on the earth how are the moon, the planets and their moons illuminated ?
You seem to be having some difficulty here. The sun shines downwards on the earth and sideways or upways on the celestial bodies.
I leave you with this .:
You are the one having the difficulty. Is the sun is a spotlight or if it acts like a spotlight, is it a spotlight or is it not a spotlight ? The definition of a spotlight is that it can shine in only one direction. A spotlight can not shine sideways or upwards.
Or are we just engaging in the old flat earth game of semantics ?
This topic has turned in to the results I had on my first topic of how the distance of the earth to the moon was determined by the Amateur Radio "Moon Bounce."
It eventually got locked by the administrator. Might as well do the same for this.
If anyone else wants to continue this discussion...If anyone else wants to play games with Tom Bishop, they are welcome to it. I'm outta here. I've wasted too much time already and have better things to do. Good Luck to you ! LOL
Think about it like this. A car can drive around. A plane can fly around and when it's on the ground, it can drive around like a car. Now, if I tell you that a plane is like a car in that it can drive around, would you be correct in denying that statement by asking how it's like a car if it can fly?
In this model, the moon is like a spot light in that it can shine done on the earth in a spotlight pattern, like how a plane is like a car in that it can drive around. Also, the sun can shine on other things in the same sense that a plane can also fly while a car (or a normal spotlight) could not.
Does that circuitous explanation clear things up?
-
Think about it like this. A car can drive around. A plane can fly around and when it's on the ground, it can drive around like a car. Now, if I tell you that a plane is like a car in that it can drive around, would you be correct in denying that statement by asking how it's like a car if it can fly?
In this model, the moon is like a spot light in that it can shine done on the earth in a spotlight pattern, like how a plane is like a car in that it can drive around. Also, the sun can shine on other things in the same sense that a plane can also fly while a car (or a normal spotlight) could not.
Does that circuitous explanation clear things up?
Not really. Would you please explain why it's so vital to FET that the sun and moon act like spotlights when they so obvious that they don't, regardless of how much you torture the definitions of "spot" or "spotlight"?
-
Does anyone know the distance between the moon and sun (min-max roughly) according to FET? The sun is 3000 miles away when directly overhead, and at least 10,000 miles away from one's location later in the afternoon, yet just like the moon, there is no noticeable change in brightness (sunrise and sunset obviously is a bit dimmer).
Going by FET, the moon is considerably farther away from the sun at different times throughout it's phases, yet the illuminated area is just as bright.
If they're both within the 'atmoplane', then there doesn't appear to be much dimming effect from the increased amount of air with the increased distance.
Looks a lot like the sun is a sphere shining in all directions.
-
Think about it like this. A car can drive around. A plane can fly around and when it's on the ground, it can drive around like a car. Now, if I tell you that a plane is like a car in that it can drive around, would you be correct in denying that statement by asking how it's like a car if it can fly?
In this model, the moon is like a spot light in that it can shine done on the earth in a spotlight pattern, like how a plane is like a car in that it can drive around. Also, the sun can shine on other things in the same sense that a plane can also fly while a car (or a normal spotlight) could not.
Does that circuitous explanation clear things up?
Not really. Would you please explain why it's so vital to FET that the sun and moon act like spotlights when they so obvious that they don't, regardless of how much you torture the definitions of "spot" or "spotlight"?
Answer: Simple. Because that is the way they would have to act if the earth was flat and fit in with the animated diagram showing the sun and the moon orbiting above the earth !
I think I have figured it out for the flat earthers.:
The dome is a mirror and acts like a reflector to focus the sun into a beam to make it act like a spotlight. This beam is so strong it burns a hole in the "atmoplane". The sun shines down through this hole in the "atmoplane". Thus the sun shines downward like a spotlight in a perfect circle . Ergo.
Problem: If the sun shines downward to the earth - if it is a spotlight or if it acts like a spotlight - it would mean the earth is brightly lighted as long as that part of the earth is in the "spotlight" but as the "spotlight" moves on the earth would go from instant bright to instant dark. That's the way spotlights act in a theater. The person is in a bright light and the rest of the stage is dark. No in between.
In the animated diagram: Does the moon turn on automatically when the sun turns off and vice-versa ? It looks as if it would be that way according to the animated diagram showing the sun and the moon in their orbits over the earth ? Does the moon act like a spotlight too ?
-
A spotlight shines light in one direction. The sun shines light in all directions, which is limited in its extent by the opacity of the atmosphere and certain limits to human perspective across a plane earth. Since the light does not propagate infinitely, due to the fact that the atmosphere is not perfectly transparent, its light is limited to a spot of light upon the plane earth. Hence, the sun is casting a spotlight without itself literally casting light in only one direction.
Why doesn't the apparent diameter of the sun vary over the course of the day in FE?
-
A spotlight shines light in one direction. The sun shines light in all directions, which is limited in its extent by the opacity of the atmosphere and certain limits to human perspective across a plane earth. Since the light does not propagate infinitely, due to the fact that the atmosphere is not perfectly transparent, its light is limited to a spot of light upon the plane earth. Hence, the sun is casting a spotlight without itself literally casting light in only one direction.
Why doesn't the apparent diameter of the sun vary over the course of the day in FE?
If the "sunset" on the FE is when "the sun gets so far away it fades away into the distant" it would seem that the apparent diameter of the sun would be smallest at sunrise, largest at noon and smallest at sunset ?
-
Does anyone know the distance between the moon and sun (min-max roughly) according to FET? The sun is 3000 miles away when directly overhead, and at least 10,000 miles away from one's location later in the afternoon, yet just like the moon, there is no noticeable change in brightness (sunrise and sunset obviously is a bit dimmer).
Going by FET, the moon is considerably farther away from the sun at different times throughout it's phases, yet the illuminated area is just as bright.
If they're both within the 'atmoplane', then there doesn't appear to be much dimming effect from the increased amount of air with the increased distance.
Looks a lot like the sun is a sphere shining in all directions.
What is the FET explanation for the illumination of the moon ? The only explanation I have seen is the bioluminescent moon shrimp ?
-
If the "sunset" on the FE is when "the sun gets so far away it fades away into the distant" it would seem that the apparent diameter of the sun would be smallest at sunrise, largest at noon and smallest at sunset ?
Bingo. Just look out your window, er, well maybe not this time.
-
If the "sunset" on the FE is when "the sun gets so far away it fades away into the distant" it would seem that the apparent diameter of the sun would be smallest at sunrise, largest at noon and smallest at sunset ?
Of course not, that would mean that the reason the Sun vanishes is due to its angular size diminishing. I hope frisbee is the only person here who didn't immediately notice how ridiculous that is. The Sun vanishes due to the intransparency of the atmoplane.
-
If the "sunset" on the FE is when "the sun gets so far away it fades away into the distant" it would seem that the apparent diameter of the sun would be smallest at sunrise, largest at noon and smallest at sunset ?
Of course not, that would mean that the reason the Sun vanishes is due to its angular size diminishing. I hope frisbee is the only person here who didn't immediately notice how ridiculous that is. The Sun vanishes due to the intransparency of the atmoplane.
The sun in FE is 3000 miles overhead. When it moves 5,196 miles away it will be twice as far from you (30-60-90 triangle, ignoring the curved flight path in FE for the moment).
The angular size of the sun is about 1/2 degree, just a fact in either model.
If it is 3,000 miles away when directly overhead then it must be 26 miles in actual diameter, FE.
And 26 miles at 6,000 miles away gives you an angular size of 0.25 degree, FE.
So the apparent size of the sun should vary in FE as it moves about only 3,000 miles above the earth surface, because the distance to the sun varies significantly in FE.
-
The Sun vanishes due to the intransparency of the atmoplane.
Interesting. I always thought that the sun vanishes due to the intransparency of the horizon.
-
The Sun vanishes due to the intransparency of the atmoplane.
Interesting. I always thought that the sun vanishes due to the intransparency of the horizon.
Interesting. I always thought that it was a combination of the intransparency of the atmoplane combined with the distance to the horizon, which is infinite in the FE, which causes the sun to vanish. That and the FE idea about perspective.
-
Interesting. I always thought that the sun vanishes due to the intransparency of the horizon.
You weren't too far off, given that the horizon's existence is also caused by the intransparency of the atmoplane. You just mixed up the cause and effect.
-
Interesting. I always thought that the sun vanishes due to the intransparency of the horizon.
You weren't too far off, given that the horizon's existence is also caused by the intransparency of the atmosphere. You just mixed up the cause and effect.
Okay, I'll bite. Just how does the intransparency (is that even a real word?) of the atmoplane cause the existence of the horizon?
-
Think about it like this. A car can drive around. A plane can fly around and when it's on the ground, it can drive around like a car. Now, if I tell you that a plane is like a car in that it can drive around, would you be correct in denying that statement by asking how it's like a car if it can fly?
In this model, the moon is like a spot light in that it can shine done on the earth in a spotlight pattern, like how a plane is like a car in that it can drive around. Also, the sun can shine on other things in the same sense that a plane can also fly while a car (or a normal spotlight) could not.
Does that circuitous explanation clear things up?
Not really. Would you please explain why it's so vital to FET that the sun and moon act like spotlights when they so obvious that they don't, regardless of how much you torture the definitions of "spot" or "spotlight"?
Why do you have a problem accepting that two things can act like two different things at the same time? Aren't you a rabid supporter of quantum physics? Oh, I forgot, only round-earth science gets to state not-yet-understood observations as fact.
RE science: This acts as both a particle and a wave, how strange and impossible.
Reaction: ZOMG HAVE A NOBEL PRIZE!!
FE science: The sun appears to act as a spotlight and not at the same time.
Reaction: LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL, N00B. GO LIVE IN A CAVE.
-
RE science: This acts as both a particle and a wave, how strange and impossible.
Reaction: ZOMG HAVE A NOBEL PRIZE!!
FE science: The sun appears to act as a spotlight and not at the same time.
Reaction: LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL, N00B. GO LIVE IN A CAVE.
The first one can be experimentally tested and proven by every scientist with the necessery equipment.
The second one is just flat earthers beeing flat earthers, no offense.
Get experimental evidence for this and you they will give you not only the nobel prize but the entire fucking nobel foundation.
-
Okay, I'll bite.
No, I'm the one doing the "biting" here. You're just trying to waste people's time, as demonstrated in the quote below:
(is that even a real word?)
Depends on what you consider "real", really. A quick Google search suggests that it appears in some dictionaries, although not the ones I'd normally use. If it makes you feel better, I'll use "opacity" in the rest of this post.
Just how does the intransparency of the atmoplane cause the existence of the horizon?
Let me try to explain this with a thought experiment (although you're welcome to try it out in real life). Picture an empty orange Tic Tac® box. We'll use the orange flavour to make the effect more apparent.
(http://i.omgomg.eu/tictac)
As you can see, the box is somewhat translucent, but not entirely transparent. It is, to an extent, opaque. This means that any light you see through it will be less luminous than it was at the point of incidence. Because the box is orange, this will be most noticeable for blue and cyan lights, but since perfectly transparent materials don't currently exist, it could also be measured for light of any colour. If you were to look through this box, the world around you would look considerably more orange, and overall somewhat darker.
Now, imagine two such boxes lined together. As you can hopefully imagine (or verify yourself if you feel like getting a bunch of Tic Tac®), looking through two boxes would make things seem even more orange, but also more dark.
Now, imagine many boxes. Like, plenty of boxes. Make sure your kids aren't looking, 'cause if they find out those dental bills are gonna be insane.
(http://i.omgomg.eu/manytictac)
Try looking through all of those in a straight line. Can you see anything at the end? Chances are the answer is "no". If the answer is "yes", please add more boxes to the simulation until the desired effect has been observed.
To nobody's surprise, opaque materials are opaque. The atmolayer is opaque. Once light passes through enough of it, it eventually dims out completely.
The sun in FE is 3000 miles overhead. When it moves 5,196 miles away it will be twice as far from you (30-60-90 triangle, ignoring the curved flight path in FE for the moment).
You seem to assume that the Sun will be directly overhead at some point. Of course, it never comes anywhere close to that. It's almost as if you were trying to create your own FET just so that you can "debunk" it. Almost. ::)
But yes, if you ventured far into the lands beyond the Ice Wall, it's quite likely that you would observe this.
-
Think about it like this. A car can drive around. A plane can fly around and when it's on the ground, it can drive around like a car. Now, if I tell you that a plane is like a car in that it can drive around, would you be correct in denying that statement by asking how it's like a car if it can fly?
In this model, the moon is like a spot light in that it can shine done on the earth in a spotlight pattern, like how a plane is like a car in that it can drive around. Also, the sun can shine on other things in the same sense that a plane can also fly while a car (or a normal spotlight) could not.
Does that circuitous explanation clear things up?
Not really. Would you please explain why it's so vital to FET that the sun and moon act like spotlights when they so obvious that they don't, regardless of how much you torture the definitions of "spot" or "spotlight"?
Why do you have a problem accepting that two things can act like two different things at the same time?
Who said that I did?
Aren't you a rabid supporter of quantum physics?
Rabid supporter? No, not really. To be honest, I never really got that much into quantum physics. I'm more of a classical Newtonian mechanics kind of guy, but I do understand where QM and GR address Newton's shortcomings.
Oh, I forgot, only round-earth science gets to state not-yet-understood observations as fact.
How does one observe the sun acting as a spotlight?
RE science: This acts as both a particle and a wave, how strange and impossible.
Reaction: ZOMG HAVE A NOBEL PRIZE!!
FE science: The sun appears to act as a spotlight and not at the same time.
Reaction: LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL, N00B. GO LIVE IN A CAVE.
The only problem with your analogy is that light can be demonstrated to have characteristics that fit the definitions of both a wave and a particle. What characteristics does a 3000 mile high, 32 mile diameter, omnidirectional light source that illuminates an area several thousand miles in diameter have that fit the definition of a spotlight?
-
Just how does the intransparency of the atmoplane cause the existence of the horizon?
Let me try to explain this with a thought experiment (although you're welcome to try it out in real life). Picture an empty orange Tic Tac® box. We'll use the orange flavour to make the effect more apparent.
(http://i.omgomg.eu/tictac)
As you can see, the box is somewhat translucent, but not entirely transparent. It is, to an extent, opaque.
No. If you can see through it, then it's transparent, even if the image changes color. If you can't see through it, but light can still get through, then it's translucent. If light can't pass through at all, then it's opaque. These are very different conditions that should not be confused or used interchangeably.
This means that any light you see through it will be less luminous than it was at the point of incidence. Because the box is orange, this will be most noticeable for blue and cyan lights, but since perfectly transparent materials don't currently exist, it could also be measured for light of any colour. If you were to look through this box, the world around you would look considerably more orange, and overall somewhat darker.
Now, imagine two such boxes lined together. As you can hopefully imagine (or verify yourself if you feel like getting a bunch of Tic Tac®), looking through two boxes would make things seem even more orange, but also more dark.
Now, imagine many boxes. Like, plenty of boxes. Make sure your kids aren't looking, 'cause if they find out those dental bills are gonna be insane.
(http://i.omgomg.eu/manytictac)
Try looking through all of those in a straight line. Can you see anything at the end? Chances are the answer is "no". If the answer is "yes", please add more boxes to the simulation until the desired effect has been observed.
Ummm... Okay.
To nobody's surprise, opaque materials are opaque. The atmolayer is opaque. Once light passes through enough of it, it eventually dims out completely.
No, that isn't what opaque means. You can't see several miles through an opaque material. It would be more accurate to say that the atmolayer is transparent at short distances but becomes translucent at long distances.
-
Interesting. I always thought that the sun vanishes due to the intransparency of the horizon.
You weren't too far off, given that the horizon's existence is also caused by the intransparency of the atmosphere. You just mixed up the cause and effect.
Okay, I'll bite. Just how does the intransparency (is that even a real word?) of the atmoplane cause the existence of the horizon?
How about "atmoplane" ?
(Is that even a real word ?)
-
No. If you can see through it, then it's transparent, even if the image changes color. If you can't see through it, but light can still get through, then it's translucent. If light can't pass through at all, then it's opaque. These are very different conditions that should not be confused or used interchangeably.
You are kind of correct, at least as far as the colloquial definition is concerned. See the more technical definition I was using: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opacity_(optics)#Quantitative_definition. My bad. Instead of trying to appease your pedantry, I should have just told you to piss off straight away.
No, that isn't what opaque means. You can't see several miles through an opaque material. It would be more accurate to say that the atmolayer is transparent at short distances but becomes translucent at long distances.
Yes, great, you think I used the wrong word because you didn't pay attention in high school physics. Luckily you heroically came to your own rescue and pointed it out. Now the explanation is complete even in your mind, and, as I can see, you have no other objections to it.
Oh, and just to prevent you from teaching people more incorrect definitions of words: "translucent" means it diffuses light. While the atmolayer is also translucent, that's irrelevant to this discussion. And no, gases don't become translucent at a distance. Refer back to the Tic Tac® example: the effect is always there, you just don't perceive it until it becomes significant enough.
-
You seem to assume that the Sun will be directly overhead at some point. Of course, it never comes anywhere close to that.
So nobody lives at the equator in FE? Nor directly under the sun's path as it wanders north and south? Really? What flat Earth model do you subscribe to and where is it's wiki?
-
So nobody lives at the equator in FE?
What?
Nor directly under the sun's path as it wanders north and south?
Yes.
Really?
Depends on what you're asking about, really, but the answer is probably "yes".
What flat Earth model do you subscribe to and where is it's wiki?
Our model has been described in quite many threads throughout the two fora. Exercise those keen observational abilities of yours and perform a few searches. I'm not digging through 4-year-old threads for someone as wilfully obtuse as you.
-
You seem to assume that the Sun will be directly overhead at some point. Of course, it never comes anywhere close to that.
So nobody lives at the equator in FE?
What?
Nor directly under the sun's path as it wanders north and south?
Yes.
So your interpretation of "directly overhead" was sitting on top of your scalp rather than being positioned vertically above your head at 3,000 miles? Cute.
And when the sun is directly overhead (as in 3,000 in the vertical direction) of someone standing 5,196 miles away from me, the sun is twice as far away from me as before and should appear about half as big across. Why isn't there any variation in the apparent size of the sun? Because the sun is 93 million miles away, not 3,000 miles away.
-
So your interpretation of "directly overhead" was sitting on top of your scalp rather than being positioned vertically above your head at 3,000 miles? Cute.
Where on Earth did you get that from? Have you gone insane, or are you doing the thing where you make shit up again?
-
So your interpretation of "directly overhead" was sitting on top of your scalp rather than being positioned vertically above your head at 3,000 miles? Cute.
Where on Earth did you get that from? Have you gone insane, or are you doing the thing where you make shit up again?
So you have no explanation for why the apparent size of the sun in FE remains the same wherever it is above the flat earth. Got it. Thanks.
-
No. If you can see through it, then it's transparent, even if the image changes color. If you can't see through it, but light can still get through, then it's translucent. If light can't pass through at all, then it's opaque. These are very different conditions that should not be confused or used interchangeably.
You are kind of correct, at least as far as the colloquial definition is concerned. See the more technical definition I was using: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opacity_(optics)#Quantitative_definition.
If you want to use the quantitative definition, then why don't you go one step further and calculate the opacity of the atmoplane and tell us at what distance the opacity becomes enough to cause the appearance of the horizon?
-
So you have no explanation for why the apparent size of the sun in FE remains the same wherever it is above the flat earth. Got it. Thanks.
No, you didn't get it at all. Again with making shit up instead of observing. I'm gonna give you one more chance, but then I'll stop wasting my time with you. If you're genuinely more interested in what you think FET is than actually reading up on it, then so be it, although I have to say I don't understand why you'd come to this website then.
If you want to use the quantitative definition, then why don't you go one step further and calculate the opacity of the atmoplane and tell us at what distance the opacity becomes enough to cause the appearance of the horizon?
Presumably because I have no access to appropriate laboratory equipment, nor the funds to procure it. I dunno. It could also be because we already know that the horizon typically varies somewhere between 4 and 20 miles depending on atmolayer density at a given place thanks to empirical observation, so chemical testing is quite unnecessary.
You see, markjo, some of us don't like to waste time on performing laborious and expensive tasks which don't need doing, just for the heck of it.
-
So you have no explanation for why the apparent size of the sun in FE remains the same wherever it is above the flat earth. Got it. Thanks.
No, you didn't get it at all. Again with making shit up instead of observing. I'm gonna give you one more chance, but then I'll stop wasting my time with you. If you're genuinely more interested in what you think FET is than actually reading up on it, then so be it, although I have to say I don't understand why you'd come to this website then.
So you can't be troubled with experiments, and you can't be troubled to explain your FE model and you can't be bothered to provide a link where it is explained somewhere since surely I am not the first person to notice that a sun moving over the surface of the earth at an altitude of 3,000 miles is going to change apparent size to an observer at the surface. Why do you run this website?
-
If you want to use the quantitative definition, then why don't you go one step further and calculate the opacity of the atmoplane and tell us at what distance the opacity becomes enough to cause the appearance of the horizon?
Presumably because I have no access to appropriate laboratory equipment, nor the funds to procure it. I dunno. It could also be because we already know that the horizon typically varies somewhere between 4 and 20 miles depending on atmolayer density at a given place thanks to empirical observation, so chemical testing is quite unnecessary.
You see, markjo, some of us don't like to waste time on performing laborious and expensive tasks which don't need doing, just for the heck of it.
In other words, you don't feel the need to support your assertions with evidence. Good to know.
-
So you can't be troubled with experiments
I am, I'm still awaiting your results!
and you can't be troubled to explain your FE model and you can't be bothered to provide a link where it is explained somewhere since surely I am not the first person to notice that a sun moving over the surface of the earth at an altitude of 3,000 miles is going to change apparent size to an observer at the surface.
Yeah, we have a search function for a reason. I caved in once when, in your splendid genius, you failed to find an Announcements thread despite the fact that it was plastered right on the front page. You've used up your goo-goo-ga-ga-baby-hand-holding quota for the next couple of decades.
Why do you run this website?
...I don't.
Also, me thinking you're a waste of everyone's time (and thus treating you with very little patience) doesn't negate my contributions here. You just happen not to benefit much from them, largely due to your sense of entitlement and avoidance of doing any research whatsoever.
Also, that was your last chance, and yet again you responded to something that has nothing to do with what I originally said. Since you ignore my responses and make up your own, I'm gonna skip the middleman and stop responding to you until you've shown some willingness to discuss.
In other words, you don't feel the need to support your assertions with evidence.
I presented evidence. You're just butthurt because my evidence is empirical and doesn't require me to save up tens of thousands of dollars to perform. Your request is the equivalent of asking a guy to perform a series of chemical tests to prove that a wooden chair is not, in fact, made entirely of iron. My answer is the equivalent of grabbing a magnet, applying it to the chair and pointing out that it didn't stick to it. You then throw a tantrum and claim that evidence isn't evidence unless it follows your exact arbitrary demands.
Also, wow, you really need to work on your paraphrasing. How did you make it into your tender age without learning this simple skill?
-
In other words, you don't feel the need to support your assertions with evidence. Good to know.
Flat earthers mistakenly think that if they have collected data that is consistent with their hypothesis, then they have collected data that confirms their hypothesis. What they don't understand apparently is the idea of falsification. A sun that remains the same apparent size in the sky for all observers falsifies the flat earth model, end of story.
Making up hypothetical atmostuff which is unevidenced is the same thing as apologetics and is engaged in by those who make the mistake in their thinking of starting off with the conclusion and then shoehorning the data to force fit their preconceived world view. Since they started off with the answer they can never be moved from it.
-
In other words, you don't feel the need to support your assertions with evidence.
I presented evidence. You're just butthurt because my evidence is empirical and doesn't require me to save up tens of thousands of dollars to perform.
Why would you need tens of thousands of dollars to plug a few values into an equation that you found on Wikipedia? ???
Your request is the equivalent of asking a guy to perform a series of chemical tests to prove that a wooden chair is not, in fact, made entirely of iron.
Huh? Where did you get that idea? ???
You then throw a tantrum and claim that evidence isn't evidence unless it follows your exact arbitrary demands.
Tantrum? If you say so. ::)
-
IMHO the main problem with FE's is that the only authority on any subject is only themselves and they would never go to an observatory or some specialist in some field connected with the earth or space for answers. Those of thus in the real world aren't afraid to do so. That is why things keep running in the real RE world. We know where to go for help.
-
A sun that remains the same apparent size in the sky for all observers falsifies the flat earth model, end of story.
lol
Making up hypothetical atmostuff which is unevidenced is the same thing as apologetics and is engaged in by those who make the mistake in their thinking of starting off with the conclusion and then shoehorning the data to force fit their preconceived world view. Since they started off with the answer they can never be moved from it.
This describes your entire posting career here thus far.
Why would you need tens of thousands of dollars to plug a few values into an equation that you found on Wikipedia? ???
To find the values so that I can plug them into the equation, for starters.
-
So you have no explanation for why the apparent size of the sun in FE remains the same wherever it is above the flat earth. Got it. Thanks.
No, you didn't get it at all. Again with making shit up instead of observing. I'm gonna give you one more chance, but then I'll stop wasting my time with you. If you're genuinely more interested in what you think FET is than actually reading up on it, then so be it, although I have to say I don't understand why you'd come to this website then.
If you want to use the quantitative definition, then why don't you go one step further and calculate the opacity of the atmoplane and tell us at what distance the opacity becomes enough to cause the appearance of the horizon?
Presumably because I have no access to appropriate laboratory equipment, nor the funds to procure it. I dunno. It could also be because we already know that the horizon typically varies somewhere between 4 and 20 miles depending on atmolayer density at a given place thanks to empirical observation, so chemical testing is quite unnecessary.
You see, markjo, some of us don't like to waste time on performing laborious and expensive tasks which don't need doing, just for the heck of it.
One FE notion is that the horizon fades away at an infinite distance. Why do you say "It varies somewhere between 4 and 20 miles depending on atmolayer density at a given place thanks to empirical observation, so chemical testing is quite unnecessary."???
Huh ? Where did you get that idea ?
This is sheer nonsense. The horizon is simply a well defined line where earth (or sea) meet the sky and the distance to the horizon can be determined by a simple formula depending on the height of the observer.
This topic seems to have gotten a little off the original subject: "The Sun Is A Spotlight" ?